Photography and Camera FAQ - Ask questions here!

scoobasio · 01-03-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g2k556

google has tons to choose from. as far as a book i'd suggest "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, it's well written, interesting, and very informative. adorama has the xt body for 250 used.

Thanks, I'll definitely see if my library/bookstore has that one. I'll be picking up an XT for $250, then I guess just the 18-55 for starters.

TheLPB · 01-03-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WGP>You27k

Any help?

what are you actually asking? restate the question, more clearly if at all possible...

WGP>You27k · 01-03-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WGP>You27k

Which option would be potentially "better" and/or most financially efficient?
Buying this and a lens separately, or finding something together used?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ck8l4

You can't really find a body cheaper than that. Get the body, and buy one of the following two lenses:
1

2

I'm just wondering how big the difference is between those lenses. And how it corresponds to the price..
Basically I'm trying to figure out if the more expensive is worth it. If it's better enough to justify the price difference, I can spend that much, but otherwise I'd assume go cheaper.

TheLPB · 01-03-2009, 06:12 PM

just buy the kit. Body + 18-55

EverLasting · 01-03-2009, 09:48 PM

i have a d40, i was wondering what the best settings would be for light trail pictures.

Matt Hemm · 01-03-2009, 09:53 PM

Slow shutter speed.

g2k556 · 01-03-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EverLasting

i have a d40, i was wondering what the best settings would be for light trail pictures.

these are the kind of questions that irritate some people around here. this shows you have put no effort into learning anything about photography and you want to be spoon fed everything. please do a google search and do some reading before you come in here, then come with specific questions after you have some knowledge on photography. and to answer you're question. slow shutter speeds, read the manual to figure out how to do this.

EverLasting · 01-03-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g2k556

these are the kind of questions that irritate some people around here. this shows you have put no effort into learning anything about photography and you want to be spoon fed everything. please do a google search and do some reading before you come in here, then come with specific questions after you have some knowledge on photography. and to answer you're question. slow shutter speeds, read the manual to figure out how to do this.

alright ill defiantly take this into consideration next time i have a question, thanks for the help.

g2k556 · 01-03-2009, 10:25 PM

you're welcome

and good luck, d40 isn't the best camera for starting out, all i've heard about it is bad.

wasimpy · 01-03-2009, 11:00 PM

the d40 is a perfectly fine starter dslr. its by no means the best but it will do everything you need it to while starting out. enjoy the camera and do sum research and welcome to photography!!

g2k556 · 01-03-2009, 11:03 PM

i've heard lots of bad things about it, mainly about the autofocus. i've heard that the the xt is a much better choice and i agree, i use one.

772baller · 01-03-2009, 11:11 PM

anyone looking to get a grasp on the baiscs and what everything is in digital photography should get this magazine/book. it breaks everything down simply and explains what it is in a normal persons vocabulary rather than a photographers.
well worth the $6.

also, one question what is better or what are the differences in the XS and XT. i did the side by side comparison on dpreview and only saw subtle differences such as LCD dots and constant drive speed.

wasimpy · 01-03-2009, 11:12 PM

every one is entitled to there opinion, but i do not agree with telling someone there camera is inferior basically because you shoot something different and a bunch of cannon fans talk trash about nikon. The d40 only has 3 auto focus points, yea it should have more, but o well, for an entry level dslr its a very nice camera, and plus its up to the person buying the camera to make the decision its all preference, I am not saying its the best camera, but it will take just as nice of a picture as the comparable cannons.

fainerbainer · 01-03-2009, 11:28 PM

however, comparitavely, to other entry level dslr's it's overpriced and crippled. I've messed with all kinds of entry level cameras and the AF was slow, FPS was slower, no AF in body, couldn't use some of the cheap prime-like lenses that noobs will buy to learn on, 3 AF points, and that's just off the top of my head when I was researching.

772baller · 01-03-2009, 11:40 PM

compared to canons entry level dslrs that have 7 points 3 is far inferior.

PaInTbAlLeR91 · 01-03-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 772baller

also, one question what is better or what are the differences in the XS and XT. i did the side by side comparison on dpreview and only saw subtle differences such as LCD dots and constant drive speed.

The XS has a Massive viewing screen.

772baller · 01-03-2009, 11:50 PM

xs - 2.5" @ 230,000 dots
xt - 1.8" @ 115,000 dots

i guess it was an older entry level comparable to what the XS is now. they probably just imporved upon a few things.

g2k556 · 01-04-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wasimpy

every one is entitled to there opinion, but i do not agree with telling someone there camera is inferior basically because you shoot something different and a bunch of cannon fans talk trash about nikon. The d40 only has 3 auto focus points, yea it should have more, but o well, for an entry level dslr its a very nice camera, and plus its up to the person buying the camera to make the decision its all preference, I am not saying its the best camera, but it will take just as nice of a picture as the comparable cannons.

how can i take what you say seriously when you spell Canon wrong, especially when it's one of the most commonly seen brand names, it comes on printers, slrs, p/s...

and you proved your point, it has less auto focus points and it's limited to new af-s lens which cuts out a lot of options from what i understand. so for the same price i think i'd rather go with the xt

Cmizzle · 01-04-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 772baller

xs - 2.5" @ 230,000 dots
xt - 1.8" @ 115,000 dots

i guess it was an older entry level comparable to what the XS is now. they probably just imporved upon a few things.

new processor, new kit is with IS, larger screen, 2.2 mp more and liveview

I have a XS, friend has an XT. I'd have my XS over his XT any day of the week

772baller · 01-04-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmizzle

new processor, new kit is with IS, larger screen, 2.2 mp more and liveview

I have a XS, friend has an XT. I'd have my XS over his XT any day of the week

ok thanks. i was considering the XT for the price difference but i guess i might as well spend the extra money and get something i wont have to upgrade for a while.

fainerbainer · 01-04-2009, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 772baller

ok thanks. i was considering the XT for the price difference but i guess i might as well spend the extra money and get something i wont have to upgrade for a while.

honestly all that stuff when it comes to actually taking pictures is negligible. They cram 2.2 megapixels within the same sensor (more noise). Larger screen is nice but not necessary. Newer processor really does nothing IMO.

The only thing I would say you spend money on as an upgrade is the IS lens. Which isn't really that necessary given adequate shutter speeds for what you are shooting. Especially for 18-55mm.

If you are going to spend money an an XS you miles well start looking at the 20d or 30d.